This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
> One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
> The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO
> Computer based training on dispute settlement
> Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
Current status back to top
Key facts back to top
Summary of the dispute to date back to top
The summary below was up-to-date at
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Complaints by the United States.
These are in respect
of the alleged reclassification by the European Communities, for tariff
purposes, of certain Local Area Network (LAN) adapter equipment and
personal computers with multimedia capability. The US alleged that these
measures violate Article II of GATT 1994.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB established
a panel in respect of the complaint WT/DS62. Japan, Korea, India and
Singapore reserved their third-party rights. At its meeting on 20 March
1997, the DSB established a panel in respect of the complaints WT/DS67 and
WT/DS68. In accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB agreed to
establish a single panel to examine the complaints WT/DS62, WT/DS67 and
The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 5
February 1998. The Panel found that the EC failed to accord imports of LAN
equipment from the US treatment no less favourable than that provided for
in the EC Schedule of commitments, thereby acting inconsistently with
Article II:1 of GATT 1994.
On 24 March 1998, the EC notified its intention to
appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the
Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 5
June 1998. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel’s conclusion that the EC
tariff treatment of LAN equipment is inconsistent with Article II:1 of
At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body
report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact email@example.com giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.